Benjamin Grant

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to set aside or discharge a certificate of pending litigation.

The court had previously found that the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion for the certificate, but that the certificate would have been granted anyway.

The defendants argued against costs due to the disclosure failure.

The court reserved costs of the motion to the trial judge, citing divided success on the motion (plaintiff won on substantive issue, defendants won on disclosure finding), the reasonableness of the defendants' motion, the early stage of the action, and the potential for litigation conduct to be a factor at trial.

The plaintiff sought damages of approximately $4.8 million for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the duty of good faith arising from a renewable energy contract.

The plaintiff acquired the secured debt of a company that had a contract with the defendant to build a biomass energy facility.

When the company filed for bankruptcy, the defendant treated the contract as automatically terminated pursuant to its terms, requiring the plaintiff to seek a new agreement.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the contract unambiguously provided for automatic termination upon bankruptcy, the defendant did not act in bad faith, and the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages and prove an enforceable agreement for the sale of the contract.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that an Ontario Court of Justice judge had jurisdiction to conduct a joint trial of provincial offences and summary conviction criminal offences arising from the same events.

The majority applied a functional joinder approach and found a sufficient factual nexus, no statutory prohibition, and no prejudice.

A dissent would have found no jurisdiction based on legislative intent behind the Provincial Offences Act and would have ordered new trials.

The applicants were successful on an interim motion permitting the individual applicant to resume his day-to-day involvement in the parties' businesses.

The court was asked to determine the costs of the motion.

The respondents argued costs should be in the cause, while the applicants sought substantial indemnity costs payable immediately.

The court found that the respondent's conduct in unilaterally ousting the applicant without colour of right justified an order of costs in any event of the cause.

However, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $23,810.59 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.